We feel that one of the roles of the voluntary organizations is as an innovator and explorerinto standards and methods ... We are sick of treating the results of social problems; itwould be so much more sensible and effective if we could tackle directly the causes

themselves. Anne Clemens, VSPCC President, 19711

CHAPTER THREE

Times of Change: 1960 –1973

Post-war Australia was desperate to get back to the normality of life before the war. With increasedaffluence and access to the motor car, the suburban dream was becoming a reality for manyVictorians. But for others, housing conditions, while an improvement from the slum conditions ofthe 1930s, remained an issue. In an effort to provide a long-term solution to post-war housingshortages, the first high-rise public housing buildings were constructed in the 1960s.2

The housing shortage was not the only problem the government was trying to overcomeduring the post-war years. The year 1960 saw the introduction of the Social Welfare Act by theVictorian parliament and the subsequent creation of the Social Welfare Branch within the ChiefSecretary’s Department.3 This Act, which was in operation until 1970, was a turning point in thecreation of the modern child welfare system.4 It began to professionalise welfare services previouslyhandled by unqualified administrative officers. Social workers were employed to work with families,as well as on planning, policy and program development in the department.5 It was clear there wasa definite shift in government thinking towards exploring long-term preventative measures, not justshort-term fixes to alleviate problems.6

Just as the state government began professionalising its social welfare practice, so too did theVictorian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (VSPCC). The 1960s marked the endof inspectors and the introduction of social workers. The 1960s also saw some of the highest numbersof children in out-of-home care. There were 63 government-approved homes in Victoria by 1962,being run by voluntary and charity organisations.7 Despite the fact that, by 1963, the Society wouldadd its name to this list, the removal of children from families remained a last resort.

A home of their ownThe year 1962 was a momentous one for the VSPCC as it finally acquired a permanent home. Afteryears of renting and moving around the city centre, the Society was at last able to purchase its ownproperty. An old house at 14–16 Gertrude Street in Fitzroy was acquired through fundraising,

33

including a £5,000 donation from the Hospitals and Charities Commission towards the cost ofrenovating the building.8

The annual report of 1961–62 recorded this significant achievement as ‘probably the mostexciting thing that has happened to the Society since its formation in 1896’.9 Di Vaughan, later DiO’Neil, who joined the Society in 1971 as a professional social worker, has strong memories of thenew location:

The office was a little tiny place in the middle of Gertrude Street. In those days GertrudeStreet was a pretty rough street ... in the sense of a lot of prostitution, a lot of drinking.10

The new office in Fitzroy included a hostel for temporary accommodation for up to twelvechildren as well as an office for the Society’s staff and volunteers. This new hostel was:

... not intended to be merely an addition to the many fine institutional Homes in and aroundMelbourne, which are already providing long-term or permanent care for children ... SPCCofficers and social workers generally are often faced with the problem of finding immediate,temporary care for children ... The SPCC Home is designed to meet, at least in some measure,the need for this emergency care.11

The hostel part of the new premises was called Robin House, and was officially opened on 27March 1963 by the Hon. Arthur Rylah MLA, Chief Secretary of Victoria. It was not long beforethe Society found itself inundated with children needing temporary accommodation:

The demand ... at the Hostel for children in need has been so great that our resources ... havebeen fully extended ... it is becoming obvious to the Committee that we are only touchingthe fringes of this work.12

An analysis of the reasons children ended up at Robin House showed that, in the majority ofcases, children needed the emergency accommodation because of the hospitalisation of a parent. Byhaving emergency accommodation available for the short period it was needed, it was hoped tomaintain families and prevent children entering state care.13 While children were referred to thehostel for other reasons – including unsuitable home environments, behavioural problems, or thedesertion or mental instability of parents – overwhelmingly, the support families needed was thekind usually provided by the extended family and community network. The Society also beganreceiving a high level of requests from working mothers needing assistance caring for their childrenafter 5pm, reflecting the increasing number of women entering the workforce and the lack of childcare options available.14

TOP

From 1962 the Society operated from a property at14-16 Gertrude Street, Fitzroy (far right).

BOTTOM

Robin House, an emergency accommodation homefor children, was opened in part of the Society’sFitzroy office in Gertrude Street, Fitzroy, in 1963.

34 A JOURNEY OF HOPE AND RESILIENCE

Professionalisation The year 1963 was also significant for the Society, as it marked the beginning of the end of an era.In 1963, both long-time inspectors Robert Burke and Dorothy Rye retired. Between the two ofthem, they had clocked up an impressive 49 years as inspectors for the Society.15 Their retirementsignaled the end of almost 70 years of inspectors providing child protection. The expense of settingup Robin House, including the salaries of the new hostel staff, meant that the Society could nolonger afford to pay the wages of both inspectors and the secretary. These roles were combined intoone with the appointment of Peter Hannan in 1964, but increasingly the daily running of the Societyfell to the president.

Anne Clemens became president in 1964. Having joined the committee in 1961, she followedin the footsteps of her mother, Emily Turnbull, who was president from 1937 to 1948. Clemenscame to the role with a strong sense of obligation and drive. Born to a privileged family inMelbourne, she spent time in Europe attending schools in London and Paris, and lived in Indiaduring the time of British rule and in Cyprus as a new bride. Clemens returned to Melbourne in1960 and soon joined the Society.16 Since its foundation in 1896, the VSPCC executive committeewas made up of women whose privileged upbringing came with the expectation of giving back tothe community. When interviewed in 1996, Anne Clemens recalled:

When I left school you weren’t allowed to take a job because you were taking the bread outof somebody’s mouth. But you were expected to work jolly hard at all these various charities... When I came back to Australia in 1960 I was approached by Mrs Seymour who just told me‘You’ve got to fill your mother’s shoes you know. She was on the Committee so you’ve got tocome on.’17

Anne Clemens’s forthright style and determined attitude helped raise funds and awareness forthe Society throughout her 16-year presidency. She used her wealth and influence to organisesuccessful fundraisers and events through the Society’s committee, including hosting the popularannual Derby Eve Ball at her Toorak home, Dunraven. Di O’Neil recalls Anne Clemens with clarity:

Anne was a person of very good intention, a passionate person, but a very rich person whohad a different way of doing their business. I remember going to see the Director of SocialWelfare with her one day about something she was annoyed about ... and we walked into hisoffice ... when we went on official business she used to wear a massive fur coat ... She sort ofwalked up to him and sort of tapped him on the shoulder and said, “Hey, young boy, listen towhat I’ve got to say!” That was her style.18

Peg Sitlington became the society’s first welfare officerin 1965 and remained in the role for eighteen years.

35TIMES OF CHANGE

While Clemens represented the traditional approach to child welfare and charity, she did so ata time when society was shifting away from such methods. The child protection movement inVictoria was becoming more professionalised, looking for professionally trained social workers andwelfare officers over the inspectors and volunteer child rescuers of the past. Without the inspectors,the Society worked closely with female police officers, who were also authorised to remove childrenif they were considered to be in danger under the prescribed terms of the Social Welfare Act 1960.

In 1965, the very first welfare officer was employed by the Society. Peg Sitlington was bornPeg Harrison-Owen in 1916, and grew up in Toorak. During World War II she enlisted, along withher sister, in the Australian Women’s Army Service, rising to the rank of Captain. By the time shestarted working at the Society as its first welfare officer, Sitlington was almost fifty years old. Shehad initially applied as a volunteer for the Society, but with qualifications as a mothercraft nurse,Anne Clemens employed her as a welfare officer. Her maturity combined with her army backgroundmeant that she had a commanding and confident presence.

Peg Sitlington launched herself into the role of welfare officer with incredible energy and dedi-cation. For the next 18 years she worked tirelessly, first and foremost caring for children in need,and secondly promoting the activities of the Society by talking to numerous groups and inspiringcountless individuals to get involved and help out. Her appointment signaled a change in the practiceof the Society. Sitlington did everything she could to reconcile parents and children and to avoidcalling on the authorities to remove children from their families. Her gentle and compassionateapproach was to try to help families see the Society as a source of support and help, rather than anauthoritarian figurehead out to break families apart. If ever there was an occasion to remove children,Sitlington or the Society could call on the women police, who had the authority to remove childrenand taken them into care.

While Peg Sitlington had a great reluctance to initiate the removal children, she always workedwith the best interests of the child at heart:

I would never, never never never remove a child! In all my years ... in my visiting homes Ididn’t ever remove a child without the mother ... I would take the mother and the rest of thechildren all piled into the car and would either go to the hospital – it was usually a hospitalcase ... or Robin House. There is no way on earth I could have worked any other way ... thechild needed help and the family needed help itself.19

Battered baby syndromeIt was clear from the very first year of operation that there was a very great need for the type oftemporary accommodation provided by Robin House. It was also clear that Robin House alonewas not going to solve the problem. While operating the accommodation hostel added a considerable

A case of abandonment

In 1960, a desperate grandfather soughtthe Society’s help with his three younggrandchildren, all under five years old. He had been caring for them for the pasttwo weeks, after their mother left herwhereabouts unknown. The children’sfather left the family two years ago. Thegrandfather was unable to care for thechildren due to poor health and went to theSociety for assistance. The Society tookthe children to the Children’s Court withthe recommendation that they be admittedinto care of the state.

Annual Report 1960-1961

36

increase to the Society’s running costs, each child costing almost £10 a week to care for, it alsochanneled the Society’s energies in a changed direction. The focus on temporary care and familyassistance that emerged in the early 1960s contrasted with the more traditional home inspectionsand investigations of earlier eras.

Just as the Society was finding its feet with its new role as a temporary accommodation providerand with the introduction of its new welfare officer, child welfare, too, was undergoing a transfor-mation. This saw a shift away from the more traditional approach to child welfare, with its moralisticovertones and close ties to law enforcement, to a new psycho-social model, which tried to respondto the individual factors present in each family that placed children at risk.

The emergence of what was known as ‘battered baby syndrome’ in the 1960s was a majorturning point in the history of child protection. In the 1966 annual report, the Society describedUS medical research that documented previously undetected fractures in young infants, the resultof non-accidental injuries inflicted by their parents. Two influential research papers were alsopublished that year in Victoria; one documenting developmental delays in neglected infants admittedto state care in Victoria, and the other reporting the incidence of non-accidental physical injuries ofyoung children admitted to the Royal Children’s Hospital.20 Battered baby syndrome quicklycaptured the imagination of the general public, which was understandably horrified and concerned.The following year, for the first time the Society included some distressing photographs in its annualreport, including welts on a young child’s buttocks that had been caused by beating.21

President Anne Clemens, while glad to see the spotlight finally on this confronting aspect ofinfant abuse, felt frustrated that it had taken so long. When interviewed in 1996, she recalled thatthe Society had a terrible time trying to get medical professionals to acknowledge the cases of childabuse the Society was dealing with, including initial resistance from some doctors at the RoyalChildren’s Hospital.22When in 1962 the Society finally found a supportive doctor, Anne Clemenswas very excited. ‘Max was marvellous’, she recalled, ‘he even went to the Children’s Hospital withme on one occasion with a case when we argued against the hierarchy about it’.23

Dr Max Shavitsky walked into the Fitzroy office of the Society one day in 1962 and offeredhis services in an honorary capacity. In an interview in 1997, he reflected on the ways in whichworking with the Society changed his views on child abuse. Before encountering the Society, heconcedes his stance on child abuse was ‘hard-hearted’, but he acknowledged:

... I came to see the environment and the social issues that were involved in each individualcase. It was rarely black and white.24

The public attention given to battered baby syndrome was also reflected in an increase inphysical abuse cases handled by the Society. From 1966 to 1970, 13 per cent of cases referred to theSociety involved physical abuse, but from 1970 to 1975 this figure doubled.25

Anne Clemens was president of the Society forsixteen years from 1964. She followed in thefootsteps of her mother, Emily Turnbull, who waspresident from 1937 to 1948.

Courtesy of Charlotte Clemens

37TIMES OF CHANGE

In response to public outcry and pressure from organisations including the VSPCC, theVictorian Government set up a Committee of Investigation into Allegations of Neglect andMaltreatment of Young Children. The Society was quite critical of this committee, which was madeup of the director-general of social welfare, the deputy commissioner of police and the pediatricconsultant for the Health Department, as it felt that no public servants at all should be part of thecommittee. Nevertheless, the Society made a number of recommendations to the committee, specif-ically regarding the improvement of preventative measures.26

The report that was released the following year, however, in 1968, was a great disappointmentto the Society, which felt that the committee had missed an important opportunity to make somesignificant recommendations to the government. The fact that this report neglected to recommendmandatory reporting of suspected cases of child abuse, was particularly distressing for the Society.‘Unless it is made mandatory for a doctor to report suspect cases of maltreatment of children’, theVSPCC warned, ‘there is little likelihood of doctors making a report’.27 The Society continued tofight for this over the next 25 years. Victoria introduced mandatory reporting for physical and sexualabuse of children in 1993.28

The Society was increasingly keen to work with families by helping children considered to be‘at risk’ as early as possible, in order to prevent, wherever possible, the breakdown of family units. Itsfrustration at the committee’s lack of necessary recommendations for change was clearly reflectedin the annual report for that year. The executive committee cautioned that if mandatory reportingwas introduced: ‘investigations could be made before a child is returned home, to perhaps suffereven greater hardship’.29

The Society still faced an uphill battle to raise enough funds to cover its increasing activities.Child abuse was receiving greater public attention and the Society found itself inundated with work.In 1969, president Anne Clemens disclosed this dire situation, reporting:

We have no subsidy of any sort, our finances are so precarious that we are unable to provideanything in the nature of a full service.30

This meant that, for many Victorian families, their only option was to contact the police, theonly other group with the authority to respond to and act upon allegations of child abuse andneglect.

Working together

The Society received several reports from a neighbour that a five year old boy wasbeing abused by his landlady while hisfather was away at work. But every timethe Society visited, there was no signs ofabuse or neglect, although it was theopinion of the visiting officer that the childwas indeed suffering. The localpolicewoman had also investigated thecase and while she was convinced thechild was being abused, was also unable to prove any abuse was occurring. TheSociety tried to convince the father tomove to a different boarding house, but heresisted. Unwilling to give up, the Societycontacted the boy’s school and asked thatthe teacher report any sign of abusivetreatment. Finally, with evidence from theboy’s teacher, the local policewoman andthe Society’s officers, a case was made forthe Children’s Court and the landladyadmitted to having physically abused theboy. She was found guilty and sent to gaoland the boy was admitted to the care ofthe Social Welfare Department.

Annual Report 1966-1967

38

Geelong Branch

From the very early days of its establishment, the Society recognised the importance of extending its reach beyondthe confines of metropolitan Melbourne. In 1897, just one year after the formation of the Society in Melbourne, aGeelong branch of the Victorian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty and Neglect of Children was established.W.H. Hudson was appointed inspector and the annual report for that year reported that the branch ‘has workedwith very satisfactory results, the reports of the local Inspector showing a distinct improvement in many familiesunder his supervision’.31 There were high hopes that this would be the first of many regional branches across thestate. The Society’s secretary, William Church, visited Castlemaine and Bendigo in 1898 to assess the extent oflocal support in these areas. However, when Hudson resigned in 1900, the Geelong branch ceased operation andthe VSPCC’s hopes for further regional expansion were shelved for the time being.32

In 1927 and again in 1939 the question of establishing regional branches of the Society, particularly in popularcentres such as Ballarat, Bendigo and Geelong, was raised again. But both times the idea failed. In 1939 thereason given was that the establishment of a regional branch ‘would be a risky experiment because of the possiblelack of sustained interest’.33

But finally, by 1971, it was not only clear that there was a pressing need for the services the Society could offerthe people of Geelong, but that there was indeed sustained interest in tackling child abuse and neglect. PresidentAnne Clemens approached social worker Betty Graham-Higgs and asked if she would be interested in establishinga Children’s Protection Society branch in Geelong.34 Graham-Higgs agreed, and once again the Society had aGeelong operation.

In March 1971, at a luncheon organised by Mrs Colman, the Geelong Regional Committee was formed. Thecommittee was established to assist the work of Betty and welfare officer Mrs Cornford. In order to generate thefunds necessary to support the work of the regional CPS branch, the committee operated an opportunity shopspecialising in children’s wear.

Betty Graham-Higgs became team leader of the Geelong branch from 1971 to 1979. Within the first 18 monthsof operation, 85 cases of suspected child abuse and neglect were handled by the Geelong branch.35 By 1975 thisnumber had grown to 284 children assisted by the Society. 36 It was Graham-Higgs’ vision and philosophy ofpractice that really established the Geelong branch as a centre of innovation. She established the Family Aideprogram, which involved volunteer parents – with training from the Society – working alongside at-risk familiesto provide day-to-day support, advice and assistance about parenting and being a family. This program was soonsuccessfully adopted across the Society and later within the Department of Social Welfare.

The Geelong community was incredibly supportive of the work the Society was doing. Betty Graham-Higgs

Lindsay Field House at 21 Aberdeen Street,Geelong, was home to the Geelong branch from1980 until 1985. It was named after the LindsayField Trust, which donated most of the money topurchase the property.

39

established strong working relationships with local professionals including nurses, paediatricians, police andgynaecologists. Under her leadership, a professional advisory group was developed to advise the CPS team whenintervention with families was necessary. This group included paediatricians, psychiatrists, social welfare officersand solicitors.

When Betty stepped down in 1979, Phillip Swain took over as team leader. He had worked alongside Betty Graham-Higgs for a number of years while he was with the Barwon Social Welfare Department, so he was well aware ofthe work being done by CPS in Geelong. As well as continuing the work she had established, Swain introducedan after-hours phone service. A strictly, ‘emergencies only’ service, the benefit of CPS running an after-hoursphone line, meant that the community could call CPS rather than the police – which was the only other option.He recalls:

This was a bit of an experiment, as it did expose us (mostly me) to after hours and weekend contacts, andthe potential for intrusion into personal life that this entailed ... but ... I found that there were few callerswho abused this opportunity…. most of those who called – and there were a few, though not anywherenear every night – were in real need of advice/assistance and did not want to call the Police.37

By the time Phillip Swain was team leader, the Geelong CPS branch had managed to raise enough funds andsupport to purchase a house for the exclusive use of the Society. Lindsay Field House at 21 Aberdeen Street offi-cially opened in 1980. Swain remained team leader until 1984 when it became clear that the future of CPS wasuncertain after the release of the Carney Review. Lindsay Field House was sold in 1985 and the Geelong branch,as well as the Regional Committee, ceased operations in 1986, after 15 years of operation.

40

Beyond MelbourneThe Society knew first-hand some of the very real difficulties facing Victorian children and families.By 1968, Robin House had been operating for six years and had provided refuge for 571 children.38

During this time the Society had increasingly felt the need to extend its services beyond the metro-politan region. From almost the very beginning of the VSPCC, the Society had been well aware ofthe demand for its specialised services in all areas of the state. The needs of children were notgeographically localised. The Society had extended its reach in the past to Geelong, the success ofthis venture only thwarted by lack of financial support.

By the late 1960s, the Society again wanted to move beyond the confines of metropolitanMelbourne. It had received requests from several areas in country Victoria asking for support andservices for children to be set up. The need for the services provided by the VSPCC in regional areaswas all too clear. However, with finances already stretched through the establishment of RobinHouse and the employment of professional staff, the Society could only consider areas wherefinancial and community support could be provided to assist in its work.

In 1968 the citizens of the Latrobe Valley raised the necessary funds to provide the Societywith the financial support it needed to open Swan House, a second emergency accommodationhostel for children in need, in Traralgon. The first child was admitted on 15 October 1968, and byJune 1969, 40 children had been cared for by Matron Anne Johnson and her Swan House staff.39

At the time Swan House was accepting its first child resident, in Ballarat a small regional branchof the Society was formed under the chairpersonship of Mrs Torney. While the Ballarat RegionalCommittee did not have the funds to establish a temporary care home immediately, despite recog-nising ‘an urgent need’, it did appoint a welfare officer to work with children in the Ballarat regionin the same way that Peg Sitlington worked with children in Melbourne.40

By the end of the 1969 financial year, as well as assisting in the establishment of services in thetwo regional areas of Gippsland and Ballarat, the Society had assisted 1,291 children, and 148 childrenhad passed through its temporary homes.41

Changing attitudes to welfareAs the new decade dawned, many of the changing attitudes and concerns regarding child abusewere consolidated in the revised Social Welfare Act 1970. This replaced the Social Welfare Act 1960 andbrought with it the appointment of the first Minister for Social Welfare and the establishment ofthe Social Welfare Department.42 In 1971, 25-year-old social work graduate Di Vaughan (laterO’Neil) was employed by the Society, as the employment of a social worker was one of theconditions of government financial support to the Society. Reflecting on her feelings as a youngsocial worker starting at the society, she said:

Swan House, the Society’s emergency accommodationhostel in Traralgon, opened in 1968.

41TIMES OF CHANGE

I was certainly making it up. I don’t know that I felt a pioneer, I probably would have if I wasa bit older, I just went in to do the job basically ... I think because I was young I didn’t feelnecessarily daunted by it, and I was prepared to give it a go.43

A typical day for the Society’s social worker could involve visiting up to four different familiesin different areas of Melbourne, anywhere from Dandenong to Coburg. Due to the far-reachingnature of the work, the Society purchased a car, after years of organising car pools to drive theinspectors and welfare officers around.

For the first year, Di O’Neil and Peg Sitlington worked closely together as social worker andwelfare officer, alongside local female police officers. O’Neil recalls, ‘It wasn’t like a mother-daughterrelationship but there was an element of that in there. I knew what she was doing and she knewwhat I was doing all the time’.44 O’Neil’s philosophy, quickly shaped by her work with the Societyand the families she met, was one of hope, reflecting the changing practice of child protection:

I built my practice around hope ... when I met somebody I was looking as much for what wasworking as what wasn’t working, and thinking how that could be extended. I think theinspector role before was to go out, have one look, and disappear, whereas if there’s going tobe hope you might have to go a couple of times, you might have to build a bit more aroundpeople. So I think I was doing much more of a social work intervention than just checking tosee how things were.45

In her first report for the Society in 1971, Di O’Neil articulated this shift in attitude andpractice, by stating that, of the families the Society was working with, ‘their problems can’t be solvedby telling them the answers’.46

That same year saw the establishment of the Society’s activities in Geelong. In March 1971, ata luncheon at the home of Mrs Colman, the Geelong Regional Committee was formed with RobinGubbins as president. To fund its activities, the committee decided to open and staff an opportunityshop specialising in children’s wear. The primary aim of the committee was to assist the work ofnewly appointed social worker Betty Graham-Higgs and the Society’s work in the Geelong andBarwon region. Welfare officer Mrs Cornford was also appointed to assist with the work in theregion. During the first 18 months of operation, there were 85 cases in Geelong involving 220children.47

By 1972 Di O’Neil and Peg Sitlington found themselves part of a much wider team of supportworkers. Mrs Lustig joined the Society as a social worker employed specifically to work with migrantfamilies. Betty Graham-Higgs and Mrs Cornford were the social worker and welfare officer for theSociety’s Geelong branch, and Sister Betty Johnson and Mrs Armstrong both welfare officers forthe Ballarat arm of the Society.48 These appointments were made possible through the significant

A migrant family

As Australian society was becoming moremulticultural, the Society found itselfworking with more families from diversecultural backgrounds. In 1970 the Societywas called to investigate a Turkish familywith four children. A neighbour hadreported that the four children, aged 9, 7, 3 and 18 months were home alone all daywhile the parents were at work. When theSociety made contact with the family, itdiscovered that the father was in hospitaland the mother needed to work in order forthe family to pay their rent. The motherhad the two eldest children looking afterthe younger children while she was atwork. This situation lasted for two weeksuntil the father returned to work. Theeldest children went back to school andthe mother remained at home caring forthe younger children. The Society’s welfareofficer was able to develop a friendly relationship with the family and providewarm clothing for the children. The familyintroduced the Society’s welfare officer toanother Turkish family with two deafchildren, who needed assistance but didnot know where to go. In 1972, the Societyemployed its first social worker specificallyto work with migrant families.

Annual Report 1970-1971

42

fundraising efforts of the Society and financial support from the William Buckland Fund and theMyer Foundation.49

In her report for 1972, social worker Di O’Neil wrote about how the services being offeredin Melbourne were changing:

Investigating alleged child neglect and ill-treatment is still the main function of the agency, butonce neglect and ill-treatment have been detected we are able to offer these children and theirfamilies more professional counselling services.50

The report went on to argue that a multifaceted approach to child welfare, involving workingwith the emotional, psychiatric and economic issues affecting families, could help to keep familiestogether.

The Society was keen to provide Victorian children and families with the best treatment andservices according to their needs. In her president’s report in 1972, Anne Clemens wrote thatvoluntary organisations, like the Society:

... should be constantly reassessing their role; being more flexible than statutory bodies, theyshould initiate new services and try to plug holes where services do not reach.51

What’s in a name?In 1971 the Society became part of a research project examining the Children’s Courts and theproblems associated with the institutionalisation of children as part of a wider study being undertakenby the Criminology Department at the University of Melbourne.52 Around the same time theSociety began to support social work students from the University of Melbourne, as part of the fieldtraining aspect of their course work.53

That same year the Society changed its name from the Victorian Society for the Prevention ofCruelty to Children to the Children’s Protection Society. It was a simple, but significant, difference.Almost from the moment of her arrival at the Society, Di O’Neil pushed for this name change. Theold name was an immediate barrier when dealing with families, who interpreted the visit as a‘judgment on their ability to cope’.54 Earlier inspectors, including Dorothy Rye, experienced hostilitywhen introducing themselves and the Society. In a newspaper interview Rye said every time shewould introduce herself as being from the Victorian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty toChildren, ‘it is usually met with anger. I don’t blame them ... I’d feel the same myself!’55

The very first annual report after the name change reflected the positive difference it washaving for the Society:

The Society's first social worker, Di O'Neil, whowas employed in 1971.

Herald, 22 May 1973, courtesy of Di O'Neil

43TIMES OF CHANGE

Already we are seeing the benefit ... Our client group is much less threatened with this newtitle and much more ready to seek our assistance.56

The development of the regional branches of the Society was well underway by the early1970s. The need for temporary emergency care in Gippsland was clear and by 1971 the GippslandRegional Committee had made progress towards establishing a permanent home in Sale. Througha combination of fundraising, donations and government grants, a new purpose-built home wasestablished and opened by the new Minister for Social Services, the Hon. Ian Smith, in 1972.

Work in Geelong was increasing too, and by 1972 the Geelong Regional Committee wassharing office space with the Barwon Regional Social Welfare Department.57 Philip Swain wasemployed with the Barwon Regional Social Welfare Department in the late 1970s and workedclosely with CPS team leader Betty Graham-Higgs. He remembers this co-location was:

... convenient in some ways but hardly ideal, as it added to public confusion as to whether CPSwas really part of the SWD [Social Welfare Department] – though it did probably mean greaterinteraction and understanding between CPS and SWD staff.58

It was clear that in the near future, the CPS Geelong branch would need its own space.By 1972 there was some financial recognition of the work the Society was doing in the form

of a government grant of $10 per week for each child residing at either Swan House or RobinHouse. This was a start, but as Anne Clemens pointed out in her president’s report for 1972, theSociety was operating reception centres that helped children who would otherwise end up in agovernment-funded place like Allambie. The new Minister for Social Work estimated the cost ofaccommodating a child at Allambie at $54 per week, so the grant of $10 to the Society, while helpful,did not nearly cover the costs of caring for these children.59

On top of this, it was becoming apparent that there were not enough places in the Society’sexisting emergency accommodation houses. By 1972, both Robin House and Swan House werevirtually at capacity for the entire year. Robin House had been home to 90 children for an averageof three to six weeks per year and Swan House had seen 157 children pass through its doors.60

Change was needed. The Society received a grant from the Alys Key Trust to establish a nursery inHeidelberg to help ease some of this burden. Considerable time was also spent developing a pilotTemporary Emergency Foster Care project, coordinating 25 families in the eastern suburbs totemporarily care for children in need.61

But by 1973 the Society found itself in crisis. With the expansion of regional services and thedemand for emergency accommodation growing, it became all too obvious that the current methodof operation from a centralised base in Fitzroy and with government subsidies that did not coverthe real cost of its services, was not sustainable. The Society needed localised support and operation.

Learning to cope

A deserted wife with two young daughters,Wendy aged twenty-one months andDebbie aged three months, referred herself to the Society when she found herfrustrations had led her to hit Wendy’shead against the wall. The mother’s ownchildhood had not been a happy one andshe had many dependency needs that lefther vulnerable to exploitation by would-befriends. She was constantly being disappointed by her attempts to formtrustworthy personal relationships. Alongwith a stressful economic situation, themother was left with a constant feeling offrustration, and when her children did notreact as she wanted them to, she felt shewas being rejected by them. At these times the children were at risk of beingphysically hurt and it was important thatthe Society’s social worker could beavailable to visit at short notice.

The mother was highly motivated toovercome her difficulties and to learn tocope with the children, whom she did love.Gradually this mother was learning to copewith her problems and provide moreadequately for her children’s needs.

Annual Report 1971-1972

44

If the services were closely incorporated into the local community, it would be much easier to buildtrust, confidence and coping skills within families. In her report for 1973, president Anne Clemensadvised:

The Children’s Protection Society has reached a crisis point where it is necessary to reviewand assess our role in the community ... No longer can we successfully operate from acentralized base. There is now a crying need for welfare agencies to operate more closely tothe local regions.62

On top of this, the increased professionalisation of the Society meant that the blurredboundaries between roles – such as the combined secretary/caseworker or CEO/president/fundraiser – which were typical under Anne Clemens’ leadership, were no longer sustainable. Withincreased diversification and regional activity, and a desperate need for more government-assistedfunding, many within the Society felt the need to review and reassess its role. Di O’Neil said in1973 that all these transformations meant the Society had changed from that of a voluntary charityto ‘a complicated welfare industry’.63 She, and others, began to call for the appointment of a director– a paid employee with management experience, who could coordinate the many, growing respon-sibilities of the Society.64

By 1973, the Children’s Protection Society was an organisation on the edge. It was no longerthe voluntary charity its founders had established, but a thriving, yet financially unsustainable agencyproviding a valuable and unique service to vulnerable children and families in Victoria. The Societyworked with local female police officers in the apprehension of children when necessary, but wasreliant on self-raised funds, government grants and philanthropic donations to care for them. It wasclear that something would have to give, and soon.

In the early 1970s the Society became involved in aresearch project examining the Children’s Courtsand conducted by criminology researchers at theUniversity of Melbourne.

45TIMES OF CHANGE